↓ Skip to main content

Neural response in obsessive-compulsive washers depends on individual fit of triggers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neural response in obsessive-compulsive washers depends on individual fit of triggers
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Baioui, Juliane Pilgramm, Christian J. Merz, Bertram Walter, Dieter Vaitl, Rudolf Stark

Abstract

Background: Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have highly idiosyncratic triggers. To fully understand which role this idiosyncrasy plays in the neurobiological mechanisms behind OCD, it is necessary to elucidate the impact of individualization regarding the applied investigation methods. This functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study explores the neural correlates of contamination/washing-related OCD with a highly individualized symptom provocation paradigm. Additionally, it is the first study to directly compare individualized and standardized symptom provocation. Methods: Nineteen patients with washing compulsions created individual OCD hierarchies, which later served as instructions to photograph their own individualized stimulus sets. The patients and 19 case-by-case matched healthy controls participated in a symptom provocation fMRI experiment with individualized and standardized stimulus sets created for each patient. Results: OCD patients compared to healthy controls displayed stronger activation in the basal ganglia (nucleus accumbens, nucleus caudatus, pallidum) for individualized symptom provocation. Using standardized symptom provocation, this group comparison led to stronger activation in the nucleus caudatus. The direct comparison of between-group effects for both symptom provocation approaches revealed stronger activation of the orbitofronto-striatal network for individualized symptom provocation. Conclusions: The present study provides insight into the differential impact of individualized and standardized symptom provocation on the orbitofronto-striatal network of OCD washers. Behavioral and neural responses imply a higher symptom-specificity of individualized symptom provocation.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Neuroscience 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2013.
All research outputs
#15,151,017
of 26,311,549 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,871
of 7,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,786
of 294,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#496
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,311,549 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.